Exactly to whom is this supposed to speak?
All right, let’s just get this straight right off the bat. I respect Captain Ed, he’s a good guy who’s been gracious with me in the past when I’ve disagreed with his point of view (on rare occasion, mind you). He is still gracious with others who disagree, like The Commissar.
But this I can’t ignore:
The only principle the filibuster has ever protected, as far as I see, is naked partisanship and in the case of lynching, racial oppression and terror. And yet, these same modern-day Senators stood with a man who used the filibuster to keep blacks from voting and justified its use against confirming judges to the appellate court. That includes one nominee, Janice Rogers Brown, whose family suffered under the threat and terror of lynching because of the same filibuster the Democrats used to keep her from her bench assignment. That isn’t ironic; it’s morally depraved.
Morally depraved? Excuse me?
Let’s be honest here–the filibuster deal has NOTHING to do with lynching. Nothing to do with racial oppression. Nothing to do with terror. What’s the deal with this kind of rhetoric? Who exactly is this supposed to sway? Those of us who actually CARE about these kinds of things? Or is it supposed to appeal to racists? I just don’t get it.
This kind of demonization is EXACTLY the kind of thing that makes me HATE BLOGS. What the hell is wrong with you people? Everywhere I look, someone’s bringing up Hitler, lynching, all this BULLCRAP. So now, am I some kind of KKK terrorist because I can SEE that three of the Bush judicial nominees have FINALLY been confirmed–and yes, BECAUSE of the much-maligned compromise?
You know, there’s a reason why the DU and Kos and other such moonbat sites exist; it’s because of the hysterical rhetoric spewed by those ON MY SIDE. (You’re not off the hook either, moonbats–your shi’ite is every bit as ridiculous, and happens ALL the time.)
Quit acting like a bunch of farking amateurs. This is NO WAY TO WIN AN ARGUMENT. No way to ensure conservatives are elected or even respected. It’s disgusting, and I’m tired of it.
Now watch, Captain Ed won’t do this, because even though he’s WRONG, he’s not an asshole (again, note that he didn’t attack The Commissar). But his little hangers-on will be here calling me a moderate, a liberal, probably a racist! HA!
Let me head that off right now: All I’ve got to say to those people is PISS OFF, amateurs. Come on over here and call me a racist or a liberal and you’ll probably not just find your comment deleted–you might be banned as well. I don’t put up with idiots, period.
By the way, has anyone ever heard the PRESIDENT (hell, any President in recent times) using such inflammatory rhetoric? How do you think he got to where he is? By demonizing and alienating his ideological opponents? Remember Pat Buchanan in 1992, when he spoke to the GOP Convention, and how many swing-voters were put off by his rhetoric? DUH! I know Captain Ed and (most) other bloggers aren’t running for political office, but if you plan on swaying opinion through your blog, you’re only going to fail. Maybe you’re only speaking to those who agree with you, maybe not–but that kind of talk is EXACTLY the kind of talk that makes centrists/independents/whatever (of which I am not one) move farther to the LEFT because the right wing sounds like a bunch of extremists.
PLEASE, QUIT HELPING OUT THE LEFT. I’m getting PISSED about how our side looks and how it’s going to make our side (the right) LOSE. Take a freakin’ Political Communications class or read a book about it, or something! GAWD!!!
YES, I’m pissed!
Wasn’t everyone bitching a few days ago about Howard Dean saying we Republicans are a bunch of “white Christians”? (As if that were something evil!) Wasn’t everyone on the left and right talking about his extremist rhetoric being BAD for the Democrats? So why the hell are WE doing it?
UPDATE: Thanks, Ed, for being gracious as always. Sorry for coming down so hard on you specifically; believe me, there are many, many others around the blogosphere who are at least as deserving of my criticism on this point, but who are unable to be reasonable about it. Obviously, I can definitely understand writing while pissed off. ;-)
Thanks again.
The Politburo Diktat says:
Compromise = Lynching
Read the latest from Captain Ed, but not right after you’ve eaten. The Gang of Fourteen stood in front of the American people and proclaimed that rescuing the filibuster amount to “saving the Republic”, and the other thirteen stood there and endorse…
Captain's Quarters says:
You Mean The Filibuster Isn’t The Center Of The Republic?
The Senate will debate whether to apologize for its role in blocking federal intervention in the quaint Southern tradition of lynching, in part by using the filibuster to block legislation making such vigilante murders a federal civil-rights offense. T…
Captain Ed says:
Beth,
Mostly it’s meant to speak to those who think that saving the filibuster amounted to saving the Senate, or the Republic, as the Gang of 14 would have people believe. I’m not calling the Gang of 14 racists (save one) or lynchers. I may have overdone it in the passage you quote, but I think “irony” is much too weak. Brown grew up in a area where lynching not only existed as a threat, but as a real experience, thanks in large measure to the filibuster. Using it to keep her off the federal bench is at the least an injustice, I believe. YMMV. I’ve updated my post based on your comments and those of others, which I think might address your comments.
I respect you and love the blog. Thank you for writing such an impassioned — and yet gracious — dissent.
William Teach says:
The way I look at the filibuster as it is today, is that it was strictly about being anti-Bush. There were no principles involved. I would dearly love to see the Parliamentary Rules put into place. Stop all the BS that stops the business fo gov’t.
Now, one can say that it is great when gov’t cannot get business done, as they are not doing things that mess up our lives. But they are going to screw it up one way or another. Let’s just “get ‘er done.” There is no reason for long winded speaches. Congress Critters have plenty of time to do that in the media.
MerryMadMonk says:
It’s writing bullshi’ite like this that really pisses me off:
“the quaint Southern tradition of lynching”
Ed needs to chill out or he’s going to lose some loyal readers.
He’s already lost one.
Right Wing Nut House says:
DID THE CAPTAIN GO TOO FAR?
Captain Ed of Captains Quarters is a passionate man. Upon seeing that the Senate was going to pass a resolution apologizing to the American people for filibustering anti-lynching laws during the last 100 years, the Captain let it all hang out:
The m…
Mark Coffey says:
Beth, remind me never to piss you off! Good post, I’m updating mine with a mention…
Decision '08 says:
Is the Filibuster an Artifact of Racism?
That’s the implication of this post by Captain Ed. The good Captain reviews the use of the filibuster to sabotage anti-lynching legislation and to stall civil rights legislation. So far, so good; we can all use a history lesson. Then he goes further:…
Six Meat Buffet says:
Fillybluster
Captain “Not One Dime” Ed whacked a hornet’s nest earlier by examining a history of the filibuster, citing it as a contributor to the continuation of lynching in the South.
CraigC says:
But seriously, Beth, how do you feel about this?
Charles R. says:
Beth,
First, I think you underestimate the quality of the typical Captain Ed reader, to presume they would all come over here and attack you.
Second, I am right on with your characterization of the President. He almost NEVER uses the word “Democrat”. He rarely attacks any individual. He really does try to elevate the discussion — which always drove me nuts when talking with my liberal buddies, because they still called him the most divisive, political president ever.
President Clinton was ALWAYS talking about the Republicans and how bad they were. Bush sometimes chastises the “Senate”, but not a party.
I’m also kind of on your side on the deal. I am no lover of the filibuster for judicial nominees, and frankly I also think that any Senate has the right to change ANY of their rules by simply majority vote — the filibuster is the MAJORITY granting the minority more power than they deserve, in the interest of harmony and comity. That grant is made with people of good will, and if the minority shows itself undeserving of being credited with good will, the majority should feel free to take the privilige away.
That said, I have been a supporter of the deal, seeing it as a political step which got most judges through, doesn’t change the equation for the reset of the judges, and leaves open the option of ending the filibuster if the democrats act up.
If I were to fault YOU for anything, it would be your overuse of sensational, raw language when trying to make your points. However, it is your blog and you have every right to say things anyway you want. It is just my personal opinion that use of profanity is a cheap shortcut to true expression of opinion.
Anyway, thanks for the blog, I really thought it was good.
Charles R.
The Politburo Diktat says:
Beth says:
Charles R., I am one of those readers myself. However, the last time I dissented (right after the filibuster deal), all I heard was that kind of idiocy (”you liberal,” “you’re no conservative,” etc. etc. etc. etc. etc.)–to the point I was getting harrassing EMAIL. You’d think Captain Ed’s readers would follow his example in being gracious about it. Apparently some think attacking me (and the others, i.e. Mark Coffey, etc.) will get Ed’s attention and endear them to him.
Anyway, the raw language is nothing new at this site, and my regular readers know to expect it from time to time. Sorry if you’re offended.
——————-
For the person whose comment I DELETED: you obviously don’t understand the HUGE difference between profanity in expression and demonizing your opponents. Get a clue. Apparently you are mistaken in thinking I talk out of my ass when I say I’ll delete idiotic comments.
Captain Ed says:
They’re very much mistaken, Beth, and thank you for knowing that.
Rhymes With Right says:
A Shocking Omission
The US Senate is about to pass a resolution apologizing for its failure to pass a law against lynching — as first proposed by President McKinley over a century ago. Why the delay? Senate filibusters, part of that proud tradition…
James says:
“You know, there’s a reason why the DU and Kos and other such moonbat sites exist; it’s because of the hysterical rhetoric spewed by those ON MY SIDE.”
No, I think those sites would exist and thrive no matter what we on the right did. They exist to fuel their own frenzied ranting, kind of like all the dogs in the neighborhood baying at once for no good reason.
James says:
Oh, and by the way, anytime anyone can manage to bring up Robert Byrd’s history with the KKK, discrimination and racism and tie it to his current idiocy, it’s a good thing.
The Commissar says:
James,
Hysteria and extremism, to a certain extent, are in the eye of the beholder. One can find sentiments just like yours (labels reversed) on Lefite sites. Beth made a good point that indulging in such rhetoric is harmful TO OUR SIDE. While it sounds good to the Party faithful, it drives away lots of others.
Beth says:
Precisely.
And actually, I am about as party-faithful as they come, unlike many who scream about ideological purity, yet threaten–and often do–leave the party, while pushing others out in the opposite direction. Hence my very real anger at those who would destroy my party (i.e. the Constitution party types, the semi-libertarian types, etc.)
My point about the moonbat sites (and moonbats in general) stands–it’s the flame-throwers in our party that make them think we’re ALL extremists, and spread that meme to others. Take a look at some of the libertarian sites, and compare their “theocrat” talk with the Kossacks. NOT much difference.
I’m as conservative and loyal as anyone, but I’m sure no “theocrat”, nor am I a “moderate” or a “RINO.” Basically though, the blogosphere is rife with activists who understand nothing about people like me, who happen to be like MOST politically interested Americans. It’s a joke.
Eric says:
I think you’re all fucked in the head. The whole lot of you.
I’m taking my blog and going home.
:mrgreen:
Vince Aut Morire says:
That’s Wiggedy Wiggedy Whacked
I want everyone to enjoy beating each other up. I shall crawl, Gollum-like, over your rotting, twisted corpses to the top of the Ecosystem. In the meantime,
Cao's Blog says:
Whiskey Sexy
You gotta love a man who acts like a man, and Captain Ed plainly said in this post that maybe he shouldn’t blog when he’s angry. Oh, c’mon now, Captain–to you I say: Whiskey, whiskey, sexy, sexy!
Ok. With that off my chest–while recently Emm…
In Search Of Utopia says:
Round the Reader - Goma Edition
Digger takes us on a trip down memory lane… Wonder Woman, now she was HOT! Eagle Scouts aint quite what they used to be! When you live in Costa Rica, you have to be prepare for THIS, all the time….
Preston says:
David (ISOU) and Beth sitting in a tree….
K-I-S-S-I-N-G…
James says:
But then, what you call “rhetoric” or “flame-throwing” may be considered fact-finding and truth-telling.
Just because Byrd and the Lefties don’t want to be reminded that he was a Klansman and a rascist and filibustered against the Civil Rights Act doesn’t diminish the value and relevance of bringing it up.
JD says:
Beth asks: “Wasn’t everyone bitching a few days ago about Howard Dean saying we Republicans are a bunch of “white Christians”? (As if that were something evil!) Wasn’t everyone on the left and right talking about his extremist rhetoric being BAD for the Democrats? So why the hell are WE doing it?”
Granted, I’ve been under the haze of Vicodin for the last three days, but I do not see Ed’s comments, taken by themselves, as being all that inflammatory, and certainly not in the league of those of Howard The Mouth out in SFO last week.
However, to those who (for some ungodly reason) choose to defend Klukker and the Seven Dwarves, perhaps Ed’s comments are pressing on a spot that they’d rather not have pressed upon.
If Beth is confident in her views that The Great Capitulation was fine and dandy, then her initial response to Ed probably should not have been nearly as vociferous as it was. I think I smell a bit of buyer’s remorse here.
Beth says:
JD- Obviously you’re yet another who doesn’t know this blogger too well. Perhaps you should look around the place before you make any ASSumptions like 1) Ed’s comments pressing on a spot, and 2) buyer’s remorse.
In fact, I’m as determined as EVER in my beliefs. Furthermore, I wasn’t ONLY referring to Ed’s use of “lynching” as irrelevant to the filibuster compromise, but rather a use of rhetoric that’s off-putting and self-defeating.
More importantly, I’m addressing the larger point that all too many of my fellow conservatives–Ed’s just the biggest, if you will, but certainly NOT the worst offender–and their often-idiotic rhetoric, such as that YOU use, JD (in your implication that there’s a “spot” I’d rather not have pressed and again).
Perhaps you ought to take another day off from commenting on blogs…you know, let the Vicodin wear off. You are so wrong in your ASSumptions, it’s just plain laughable. But have fun “proving” how conservative you are with such talk–we’ll see how that works out for ya. Mmm-kay?
James says:
Ways To Know The Person You’re Debating Is Losing:
1. They say, “Let’s bring down the level of rhetoric.”
2. They say, “We can argue semantics all day long…”
3. They speak in a very calm, soothing patronizing tone to appear rational and reasonable.
4. They say, “Don’t question my patriotism (or conservatism, morals, etc.)”
Beth says:
Hey James,
What’s your point? What exactly are YOU debating?
You’re entitled to your silly little list, but that of course doesn’t make it TRUE. Exactly WHOM do YOU expect to convert to the right by demonizing your opponents? The mentally retarded? People without a mind of their own? Come on, you’ve got all the answers, let’s hear em!
Gimme a farkin’ break. You know, you drive-by commenters sure do think you know ALL ABOUT where I’m coming from–it’s pretty farkin’ hilarious.
And you know what? I’m tired of hearing your stupidity. I’d hate to think that by ALLOWING your obnoxious bullshi’ite that my REGULAR READERS might mistake my generosity with bandwidth as thinking your points are either valid, thoughtful, or even relevant.
Sounds to me like you just don’t like the writer, and guess what–I really DON’T give a shi’ite. (Here’s a tip: you’re likely not close personal friends with any blogger–i.e. Captain Ed–so give up the asskissing.)
James says:
Beth: “But this I can’t ignore:”
Well, what exactly can’t you ignore?
“The only principle the filibuster has ever protected, as far as I see, is naked partisanship and in the case of lynching, racial oppression and terror.”
A statement of Ed’s opinion. Did he say the filibuster was only used to protect lynching or oppose the Civil Rights Act? No, he said “naked partisanship” then named specifics to make his point.
“And yet, these same modern-day Senators stood with a man who used the filibuster to keep blacks from voting and justified its use against confirming judges to the appellate court.”
True.
“That includes one nominee, Janice Rogers Brown, whose family suffered under the threat and terror of lynching because of the same filibuster the Democrats used to keep her from her bench assignment.”
Any problem with that statement?
“That isn’t ironic; it’s morally depraved.”
True again.
So what exactly is it you can’t ignore, other than the truth, that is?
Beth says:
Are you really THAT simple? :shock: Do you REALLY think the only thing the filibuster has ever been useful for are the examples you cite above? I know for a FACT Captain Ed didn’t and doesn’t believe that!
You know what? I’m tired of your simplistic bullshi’ite. There’s no point in arguing with a fuckin brick wall in comments. Besides, if you think you’re going to convice me you’re right in a COMMENT section, you’ve got another thing comin’, kiddo.
You know what? You keep on thinking the filibuster is all-evil. I’d be willing to bet you didn’t have much to say about it before all this, did you? But keep on saying all that, and just wait until the liberals start RAMMING leftist, activist judges down our throats. See how you like it then.
I hate to break it to you, but BOTH SIDES of the aisle were making the exact opposite arguments about the filibuster when roles (majority vs. minority) were reversed. That’s why I DO NOT think this is the end of the world.
You know, it’ll be a cold day in hell before I leave the GOP, but I’ll be goddamned if I’m going to allow anyone to call me your kind of “conservative.” Quit acting like a freakin’ moonbat.
Beth says:
I’ve got FAR better things to do than have an extended debate with you in comments, James. Sorry for you, but this stupid shi’ite is OVER.
James says:
[Listen, James, don't you think you ought to be using the Barksdale computer network for things other than trolling blogs?
--The Management]
James says:
Sorry, it took me so long to respond. Had trouble getting your site to load. (I assume you were busy deleting comments.):lol:
Boy, you are clever, you can use one of those free websites to find out what domain a comment comes from. Are you clever enough to know that Air Force Bases have computers for public use at the base library, the family support center, etc.
So, why do you insist on deleting comments that try to point out your misrepresentations and misunderstandings? You have yet to address the fact that you were completely off-base in your comments about the original post at CQ. Why is that?
[JAMES: I've told you already, you dimwit--I'm FINISHED with you. I do not need to address CRAP with you; I am even MORE convinced of my original thoughts regarding the kind of assholes that post appealed to, thanks to YOU.
Get a life, old man, and check with your doctor about Alzheimer's--you seem to be completely confused.
--The Management]
Eric says:
James, what you are doing is no different than pulling down your drawers and crapping in a neighbor’s yard. This is private property, bought and paid for someone who is not you. Beth is under no obligation to debate you, and has every right to shut you up.
You have your own blog, James, why don’t you use it to express your disagreement. Your insistence on wasting someone else’s bandwidth to express your views is, frankly, utterly ridiculous.
You should have gotten the hint the first time your comments were deleted James, you’re not wanted here. What you are doing now is blatant harrassment.
Beth says:
Thanks Eric, obviously this guy with the two-day-old blog doesn’t have the slightest CLUE about what I meant when I said in my post that I WILL DELETE COMMENTS. He also doesn’t understand that before shi’iteting in the yard, the smart thing to do is READ THE COMMENT POLICY.
Too bad you got to his comment before I did, though, because I have been deleting his blog URL on the comments I left here. This farking moron doesn’t deserve a single hit from my intelligent readers, nor does any drive-by troll such as he.
Further evidence of his amateurish crap: he thinks I have to go to a “free website” to find his domain. DUHHHHH. At least I don’t have to go to a library on an Air Force base to get on a computer. (Which is most assuredly a lie–I have no doubt he’s trolling from his workplace, since the IP is assigned by their Comm squadron.)
Here’s a tip, James: don’t try fooling people who have been on the internet a LOT longer than you, much less those who know something about AF comm systems–especially when we know exactly who to contact for computer abuse. Not that I’m one of those people who do such things, but that’s one thing I MIGHT actually change my mind about from reading comments.
Why don’t you try acting like a good citizen on the internet before you find your time at your own site is spent in vain, huh? You might have more than a dozen or so TOTAL VISITORS.
The Commissar says:
I can understand trolling. Really, I can. I’ve left a few snakry comments in my day. I can even understand going at it with such persistance that you get banned (me from The Agonist).
But to move around from IP to IP, getting banned in succession, just to annoy some person on the internet that you don’t know … sorry, that’s weird.
NIF says:
Six Meat Buffet says:
Gun-Toting Liberal says:
Some people need to realize that the art of sales is needed to win converts. I voted Republican for the first time in my life in the last Presidential election because I was totally DISGUSTED by the hateful, slanderous rhetoric being spewed by the left. Hate-filled rants and personal attacks only serve to repel those who are not strict “party-liners”.
It’s interesting to see that while we on the left must endure the Deaniacs, you on the right have your hands full with your own fair share of radical, right-wing fundies.
Good luck with that approach. It isn’t working very well for the left these days, and I cannot see it working too well for the right either.
Beating up on Beth for refusing to play the party game at all times is ridiculous. She is an impassioned conservative INDIVIDUAL who sets a great example for the rest of y’all to follow.
Blog ON, Beth, and God Bless ya :-)